A10-5800K vs Xeon E3-1220 v2
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E3-1220 v2 outperforms A10-5800K by an impressive 59% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E3-1220 v2 and A10-5800K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1642 | 1977 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.45 | 0.27 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD A-Series (Desktop) |
| Power efficiency | 4.04 | 1.76 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Trinity (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 14 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 2 October 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $220 | $122 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E3-1220 v2 has 437% better value for money than A10-5800K.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E3-1220 v2 and A10-5800K basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E3-1220 v2 and A10-5800K compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | FM2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 100 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E3-1220 v2 and A10-5800K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E3-1220 v2 and A10-5800K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E3-1220 v2 and A10-5800K are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E3-1220 v2 and A10-5800K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 32.77 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 7660D |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E3-1220 v2 and A10-5800K.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.06 | 1.93 |
| Recency | 14 May 2012 | 2 October 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 69 Watt | 100 Watt |
Xeon E3-1220 v2 has a 58.5% higher aggregate performance score, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 44.9% lower power consumption.
A10-5800K, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 months.
The Xeon E3-1220 v2 is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-5800K in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E3-1220 v2 is a server/workstation processor while A10-5800K is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E3-1220 v2 and A10-5800K, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
